In this paper we will be analysing and comparing, essentially from a linguistic and pragmatic perspective, the English version and the Italian version of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, hereafter called the EU Constitution for the sake of convenience. The Treaty was signed in October 2004 by the Heads of State or Government of the 25 Member States, but the people of France and the Netherlands rejected the text of the Constitution in referendums held on 29 May 2005 and 1 June 2005 respectively and since then the project of ratification by all Member States – for which the original deadline envisaged was 1 November 2006 – has been postponed, allowing for a ‘period of reflection’. Our approach to the text – in its English and Italian versions – has therefore been guided above all by the criterion of ‘readability’. Can one version be said to be more (un)readable than the other? Where do the differences lie in the two versions, bearing in mind that equivalence is “influenced by a variety of linguistic and cultural factors and is therefore always relative”?
How (un)readable is the European Constitution? A comparison of the English version and the Italian version
MILIZIA, DENISE;
2008-01-01
Abstract
In this paper we will be analysing and comparing, essentially from a linguistic and pragmatic perspective, the English version and the Italian version of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, hereafter called the EU Constitution for the sake of convenience. The Treaty was signed in October 2004 by the Heads of State or Government of the 25 Member States, but the people of France and the Netherlands rejected the text of the Constitution in referendums held on 29 May 2005 and 1 June 2005 respectively and since then the project of ratification by all Member States – for which the original deadline envisaged was 1 November 2006 – has been postponed, allowing for a ‘period of reflection’. Our approach to the text – in its English and Italian versions – has therefore been guided above all by the criterion of ‘readability’. Can one version be said to be more (un)readable than the other? Where do the differences lie in the two versions, bearing in mind that equivalence is “influenced by a variety of linguistic and cultural factors and is therefore always relative”?I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
